Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Yes, we can prove these things because we have the Bible.
And God's Holy Word tells us that Mary and Joseph had sex.
And that is ok. :-) It's the way God intended things to be.
As unScriptural as Mary's perpetual virginity is, the RC contention that she lacked Original Sin and rose bodily into heaven are truly mystifying and border on blasphemy, IMO.
From Wikipedia...
"According to Roman Catholic doctrine and the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church, the Blessed Virgin Mary (Mary, the mother of Jesus) "having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." (Pope Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus, November 1, 1950). This means that both Mary's soul and her physical body were transported into heaven. Mary's passage into heaven is called Assumptio Beatæ Mariæ Virginis (Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary) by Roman Catholics. This doctrine was dogmatically defined by Pope Pius XII on the 1st of November 1950."
I've got nothing against sex. Trust me on that one.
The Bible does not say that they had a sexual relationship. If it was that clear, the Church wouldn't have universally taught, from the earliest times, that they didn't. If it were that clear, John Calvin, who was pretty unafraid of contradicting long-held Christian beliefs, wouldn't have believed that Mary was ever-virgin.
I have no beef with Protestants not believing the Orthodox accounts and traditions. Your opinions are intellectually valid, and I don't think you are somehow a bit dull for believing as you do. But statements like you just made imply that those who believe differently from you on this particular matter either a. can't read the Bible, or b. don't believe it.
I can, and I do. The various Protestant objections based on various Scriptures have mostly been answered elsewhere on this thread, and for anyone genuinely interested in understanding what we believe and why, the information is easily available on the Web these days.
And I'll leave it at that, because I'm not particularly fond of exchanges that don't involve any real discussion. I note that you still haven't given a well-thought-out, closely reasoned explanation for what monkfan first pointed out to you -- namely that there was no reason for a woman (certainly not a betrothed woman planning to get it on with her husband, as you presumably believe she was planning to do once she and Joseph got married) to be surprised by an angel telling her that she was going to conceive and have a child some point in the future -- surprised to the point of making bold actually to question an archangel as to how such a thing could be.
If you come up with a good response to monkfan, ping me so I can read it.
Oops. Kindly disregard. I didn't realize that everybody and their brother [/cousin/close relative] had already responded with the same answer. :)
Matthew 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
There is no reason to expect or believe that Mary would of been approached by an angel so that the angel could announce her impending motherhood had this been just a normal run of the mill pregnancy.
And also, that totally destroys your argument that Mary was sworn to be and remain a virgin.
Better still, let us look to what the Bible says and why Mary was in amazement.
Mary knew the sign of the messiah.......
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
I'm not sure but here's my answer:
God controls the wind, but man controls the sails ...
Hey, so you did. You keep good notes. :) One question I don't think I was asking at the time is that if Mary had some sort of "quasi-marriage" to the Spirit, then why in the world would she have ever agreed to a traditional marriage to Joseph? Surely she had plenty of "brothers" to fill in the role of human father-figure to Jesus. If Mary agreed to be married with absolutely no intention of actually being a wife to Joseph, then how is she not guilty of fraud, a sin?
You recently thanked Agrarian on showing you the difference between Orthodox and Latin Mariology. Agrarian nailed the differences exceedingly well. But he failed to mention to you (because it wasn't pertinent) that the Orthodox held far longer than our Catholic brethren that the Theotokos was assumed into heaven, body and soul. The difference in that respect is that some Roman Catholics believe she never died, which the Orthodox Church never proclaimed for all the good reasons outlined by Agrarian previously.
Yes, I should have known that. When I thought about it some more, I remembered that I think it was you who told me what "BEV" means. I think that would pretty much sum up your view on the subject. :)
OK, well, if it means anything, I'm learning that from you. :) I sure do think a lot of Romans and Galatians, but I also think a lot of the Gospels. If I had to pick two favorites from the NT, they would be John and Romans. But still, all scripture is scripture and absolutely valid. Do you have any information that Calvin shied away from or didn't like the Gospels? I've never heard of that.
Do you have a problem with Jesus giving the power to forgive sins to the Apostles AFTER the Resurrection? Or did the Apostles make that up, too?
Regards
LOL. Life is like riding a bicycle onboard a train. We feel like we're moving on our own, but we're actually going where the train takes us.
Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. Instead, you ought to say, "If the Lord wills, we shall live and also do this or that." -- James 4:13-15"Come now, you who say, 'Today or tomorrow, we shall go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit.'
"Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it?" -- Lamentations 3:37-38
You've been sadly misinformed... I suggest you go to the men of before the fourth century and see what they have to say about the "Roman system" already in existence before Constantine.
2. "....Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians [written c. 96 AD], exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3
It should be quite clear that this "system" was already in existence when Clement was Bishop of Rome, in the 90's - when John the Evangelist was still alive, no less. I think you should reconsider you concept of the Roman Catholic Church coming into existence in the 300's
Regards
Perhaps something more scriptural to meditate on would be:
I understand and appreciate the idea of the tradition of the church/Church. Roman Catholics and Orthodox seem to forget that Protestants do follow many traditions and point back to many of the same creeds of the founding fathers. It's simply that these traditions and creeds all find their roots in the scriptures-not the other way around.
You do know what intercessory prayer is, yes? If so, do you believe it's unscriptural or just don't believe it is of any use? Also, I'm still asking if you believe the saints in heaven are part of the body of Christ.
I think that's where I got lost sometimes, when it "appeared" to me that there was some crossover between created/uncreated and the effects. For example:
"Life to the body is granted by the human spirit and real life to the soul is granted by the divine spirit. That is why the abandonment of the soul by the vivifying divine spirit causes its spiritual death, just as the abandonment of the body by the vivifying human spirit causes its physical death."
But then three sentences later, it says:
The death of the body is an inevitable consequence of the spiritual death of the soul, which is extended to the human spirit: the power which vivifies the body.
My poor little brain. :) I think I just need to get more familiar with the concepts on a definitional level, and then it will be much easier to relate them to one another. I am definitely going to bookmark this for further study. Thanks again.
One difference between Catholics and Orthodox I "think" I see is that to the Orthodox, divine grace is a lifelong pursuit that is never fully grasped until theosis is achieved. Catholics might say that sanctifying grace is achieved at Baptism. (Of course, this could be completely wrong, but I'm trying. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.